I’m sick of Bernie bringing in a new race every year. Seriously, I can’t take this crap much longer. Stick to the tracks with history and character. I honestly don’t care how good the circuit itself is, I don’t want yet another new circuit. Buddh, for example, is a great circuit, but it doesn’t deserve a place on the calendar. I think 2013 might be my last year of following F1 until this ** stops. Seriously.

I don’t think Singapore, Abu Dhabi, Buddh and Austin have been bad additions to the calender. They are well liked by all the differant stakeholders in F1. Bernie likes them because they are willing to pay the fees, fans like the moderns facilities, fans like being close to the track and the night race of Singapore, drivers like the layouts of Austin and Buddh. They appeal in differant ways to differant people in F1, with the common denominator being they all pay high fees.

Not all of them have been bad additons. Singapore is like the endurance race, and a unique challenge for the drivers. Buddh is a decent circuit to drive (though the races weren’t that exciting), Abou Diaby seems to suit this DRS-era of “racing”, and COTA, despite the rubbish name, is a good circuit.

I’m not saying they’re not good circuits, I’m saying circuits with history and character deserve more places on the calendar! In the last few years we’ve already seen Imola, Magny-Cours, and the A1-Ring removed because the new circuits need their space.

I hate all this talk of “tradition” and “history” and “character”, because it’s really just elitism. People complain that races like India have no history to them, like Belgium, but there was a time once when the Belgian Grand Prix had no history to it. The only way you get that “history” and “tradition” is by maintaining a presence on the calendar, but in refusing to include a Grand Prix on the basis that it has no “history” or “tradition”, you’re preventing it from getting the very things you value. So it’s really just elitism, protecting what already exists because it existed first. And on top of that, it staunchly and stupidly refuses to accept any notion of change. But you’d rather block newer events simply because they have been going for six years instead of sixty.

I couldn’t think of a stupider way to run the sport, or a faster way to run the sport into the ground, than to protect something which is not only intangible, but ultimately unqunatifiable, simply so that the puritans among the fanbase are happy.

Does anyone get this at all?

No, because they’re universally despised. And you’re contradicting yourself by claiming that they are great circuits, thereby satisfying you demand that Formula 1 circuits have “character”, but then adding that they should be removed because they don’t have “history”.

@prisoner-monkeys We don’t need a new race every year. And races in Asia (India, China, Bahrain, etc.) have far less seats filled each year than at the historic EUROPEAN (and Suzuka/Interlagos/Montreal/Melbourne) circuits, such as Spa, Monza, and Silverstone.

And races in Asia (India, China, Bahrain, etc.) have far less seats filled each year than at the historic EUROPEAN (and Suzuka/Interlagos/Montreal/Melbourne) circuits, such as Spa, Monza, and Silverstone.

Were you watching the Chinese and Indian Grands Prix this year? If their grandstands weren’t full, they were close to it.

Why should we get rid of Monaco, exactly?

Because it meets all of the conditions that you put forward for a race being removed from the calendar.

I didn’t say we should, i’m merely telling it how it is.
If a track is built outside of Europe that produces fantastic racing and lots of overtaking and challenge, will it still be considered bad because its not historic?

my point is, even historic races like Silverstone and Monaco and have bad races, if the calendar was based on history it would get dull pretty quickly.

It’s not just about the circuits, is about the locations. Italy, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, USA, etc. all have a rich history of motor racing. Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, China, India, Russia, etc. do not.